I thank the Cathaoirleach for giving me the opportunity to raise this matter. I also thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to listen to the case I shall make. I hope he will give a positive response to my arguments and that he will be convinced that the regulations must be amended as a matter of urgency.
Sections 18 to 23 of Part IV of the Local Government and Development Regulations specify in great detail the documentation which must accompany a planning application. I will quote briefly from the sections concerned. Section 18(1)(f) states:
A planning application shall—
be accompanied by four copies of a location map, to a scale of not less than 1:10,560 (which shall be indicated thereon) and marked or coloured so as to identify clearly the land or structure to which the application relates and the boundaries thereof.
Section 23(1) states:
Plans and drawings and maps accompanying a planning application shall comply with the following requirements—
(a) site or layout plans shall be drawn to a scale of not less than 1:500 (which shall be indicated thereon), the site boundary shall be clearly delineated in colour, and buildings, roads, boundaries, septic tanks and percolation areas, bored wells and other features in the vicinity of the land or structure to which the application relates shall be shown,
(b) other plans, elevations and sections shall be drawn to a scale of not less than 1:100, which shall be indicated thereon,
(e) plans and drawings of floor plans, elevations and sections shall indicate in figures the principal dimensions (including overall height) of any proposed structure and the distances of any such structure from the boundaries of the site.
The extracts from which I quoted make it clear that there is no room for flexibility or discretion on the part of planning authorities in relation to the documentation which must be provided so that an application for planning permission will be valid.
I have no difficulty with this level of documentation being required when a planning application relates to a substantial development. The problem is that the same level of documentation is required whether the proposed development is large or small, major or minor. For example, the regulations do not differentiate between an application for planning permission for a large apartment block in a major urban area and an application for a cattle pen in a remote rural area. I believe they should differentiate in this regard.
I am aware that the regulations specify a range of developments which are exempt but not all minor developments are exempt. For some technical reason, certain developments which could be described as minor or non-substantial are required to have planning permission. In the case of such developments, the applicant is required to provide the elaborate documentation to which I referred. This can involve considerable cost to and hardship on the applicant.
Prior to the introduction of the 1994 regulations, in the case of minor or non-substantial developments the planning authority in my area was prepared to accept plans and drawings which, although not professionally prepared and perhaps not drawn to scale, clearly showed the nature and extent of the proposed development. I am sure this also obtained in other planning authorities. However, since the introduction of these regulations, the planning authorities will no longer accept plans, drawings or maps unless they fully comply with the terms of the regulations. I will provide a number of examples to illustrate the difficulties caused on the ground.
I recently became aware of an elderly person in poor health and living alone who applied for and was approved for a disabled person's housing grant. The grant was provided in order that the individual could install bathroom and toilet facilities. The applicant lives in a rural cottage and, because the work involved the building of a small extension and the provision of a septic tank, they were notified that planning permission was required and work on the provision of the facilities could not commence until such permission was obtained. Before the 1994 planning regulations came into force, the builder carrying out the work or myself would have provided plans or drawings for the person which would have been acceptable to the planning authority for the purpose of obtaining planning permission. However, this is no longer the case. It transpired that it would cost the person in question £400 to obtain the maps, plans and drawings which would meet the requirements of the new planning regulations. The person could not afford to pay that amount. I am pressing the local authority to have the necessary documentation prepared by a member of the staff but there is an understandable reluctance to do so because of the precedent it would create.
Another case with which I dealt in recent weeks involved a farmer with a herd of 35 to 40 cattle who wishes to construct a cattle pen and crush. For technical reasons, this development was deemed to require planning permission. The farmer submitted an accurate sketch of the proposed development and every detail was shown. However, because the plans and drawings submitted were not in accordance with the 1994 regulations and did not show sections, elevations and the necessary details required, this was not acceptable to the planning authority. The farmer must now pay several hundred pounds to provide that elaborate, and in my opinion, totally unnecessary documentation. This is crazy, but the planning authority is adamant that it must insist on the documentation which complies with the regulations.
I raised this matter at county council level and everyone, including the county manager, agrees that, in the case of developments which are not substantial, it is neither necessary nor reasonable that such elaborate documentation should be required when planning permission is sought. However, the country manager insists he has no choice in the matter until the regulations are changed. Therefore, I request that urgent and favourable consideration be given to amending the regulation in the case of applications of planning permission where the development in question is not of a substantial nature. The planning authorities would then have discretion in relation to acceptable documentation.
It would be a simple matter to devise guidelines in respect of such cases by reference to the nature, purpose and estimated cost of the proposed development. By giving such discretion to the planning authorities, the Minister would remove many difficulties for applicants who are required to obtain planning permission for minor works. He would also speed up the planning process and relieve many applicants of considerable costs.
Amending the regulations would also remove some of the red tape and bureaucracy which tends to annoy people. Common sense dictates that the level of regulation and detail is unnecessary and unreasonable. I hope the Minister sees merit in my case and gives favourable consideration to amending the regulations.
